Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I will vote for the Gilman amendment for one reason and one reason only: The Gilman amendment includes the Hoyer amendment which would lift the U.N. arms embargo against Bosnia and Herzegovina and allow that nation to defend itself. There are several provisions of the Gilman amendment that are troubling to me. I support the continuation of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which the Gilman amendment would privatize. I support the work of the Agency for International Development and strongly disagree with the Gilman amendment's reductions in personnel at AID. But I have been to Bosnia. I have seen the slaughter of the people there. I have been huddled with those people in basements which were their only sanctuary after their city was shelled. The Bosnian Serbs are maiming and killing innocent people and the arms embargo continues to tie the hands of the people of Bosnia in their efforts at self- defense. The Hoyer amendment, I believe, can help to bring the war in Bosnia more quickly to an end. The Hoyer amendment will let the people of Bosnia know that the United States Congress stands with them. For that reason and that reason alone, I vote today for the Gilman amendment which includes the Hoyer amendment to give the people of Bosnia their right to self-defense.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I urge every Member to read the letter of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] before they vote on this. The gentleman is going to speak, so I will not reiterate his letter. But his letter probably sums it up better than anything. In his letter he points out in the PS that the important provision in H.R. 1561 has been endorsed by the American Legion. This is what the American Legion says. They said: These former members of the South Vietnamese armed forces who escaped certainly have great reason to fear being forcefully repatriated. All one needs to do is review the latest State Department report on human rights in Vietnam to realize that little has changed with respect to what happens. We have talked to families in my area who have talked about their family members who have literally committed suicide. I think the gentleman is right, and I strongly support the Smith amendment. I think it will be very good for the country.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the Morella amendment and in very, very strong support of the Smith amendment. As a background, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and I spent a week in China, the week we went into Beijing Prison No. 1, but we interviewed all of the population people in China, and what they are doing is abysmal, it is just a disgrace. I say to my colleagues, ``If you look at the statement by Director of UNFPA, Nafis Sadik, she said China has every reason to feel proud and pleased with its remarkable achievements made in family planning policy and control of its population growth over the past 10 years. Now the country could offer its experience and especially experts to help other countries.'' That is crazy. Let me tell my colleagues what we have now found out. We have found out in China, and I am not going to show this picture, but I will show it to any Member that wants to see it, but we have found out in China that in government hospitals, because of their forced abortion policies, they are selling, and I would urge all Members to read this article from Eastern Express that says embryonic food of life; they are selling aborted fetuses, or frankly they are selling aborted babies for money, for about $1.25 in Hong Kong money. This money will be used by the Chinese indirectly to literally track down women. We have heard, Chris and I, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and I have heard, of cases whereby they literally track down women in the villages, and bring them in and force them to have an abortion. This is a fundamental, important vote; it is much more important than population control. Let me just say, too, that I support birth control, I support money for birth control to India and places like that unable to gain control of the population, but under no circumstances would I ever support, nor should this Congress support, nor should any Member support, giving any American taxpayer money indirectly that goes to China. Here is a picture of what is not bad to show, of a young lady leaving, leaving with a container of aborted babies, leaving to go to Hong Kong. I say to my colleagues, ``When you read this story and look at these pictures, which [[Page H5496]] I will not show, they will make you sick.'' This is a vote on a fundamental, ethical, moral issue. Under no circumstances should any American money go to UNPF and then go to China. So, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] is right, and I commend him for offering this, and I urge all my colleagues, those who have been following this issue and those who may be new, this is a vote that will be watched. The Chinese Government will watch what we will do, and by voting for the Smith amendment we will send the strongest possible message we can to the Chinese Government that their policy of tracking women down, of forced abortions, of selling aborted babies, is fundamentally wrong, and we will support it in no way. A vote for the Smith amendment is a vote, I think, to help a lot of people.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I suspect that when we are gone, the administration will announce they are going to give China MFN. We should know several things: one, persecution has increased. Catholic priests have been arrested; on Easter Monday a Catholic priest was taken away. On Maundy Thursday they raided a house church. Violations of human rights have increased. The Gulags have increased. Most of the people watching this today are wearing clothing made perhaps in Gulags, but since that time, we have found out two additional things. We now know conclusively that they are shooting 25-year-old men and taking their kidneys and selling them for $25,000. We have conclusive proof. I urge anyone who wants to see it to come to my office and I will show them. The, last week, we found out in Chinese hospitals they are selling aborted fetuses, aborted babies, for food to eat. When this Congress has an opportunity to vote on MFN, I ask Members to think in terms, do they want to give a country like that MFN when they are selling aborted babies for eating and killing people for kidney transplants? These are the things that the Nazis did, and we would never give MFN to Nazi Germany.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to recognize an outstanding individual and public servant, the late Carmen Turner. Many of you may remember Carmen from her days as the general manager of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, more commonly know as Metro, and as Under Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. However, you may not know how hard Carmen worked to turn her dream into reality. Born in New Jersey, Carmen and her family moved to Washington, DC, during her childhood. Carmen went on to graduate from Dunbar High School and then attended Howard University for 2 years before she left school to marry Frederick Turner. Those of use, though, who knew and loved Carmen know she never left any task unfinished. Carmen went back to Howard to complete her undergraduate degree. Even more impressive is that she did this while working full time at the Department of the Army and raising two children. Following a stint at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Carmen joined Metro in 1977 and was promoted to general manager in 1983. As general manager, Carmen played a substantial role into making Metrorail into the state-of-the-art subway system it is today. Under her leadership, Metrorail opened new stations in suburban Virginia and Maryland, as well as finalized plan for the Green Line, which will run through the heart of the District of Columbia. Her hard work paid off in 1990, as Congress passed legislation authorizing $1.3 billion for the completion of the Metrorail system. Her service did not go unnoticed. In fact, in 1988 the American Public Transit Association [APTA] gave Carmen their Outstanding Achievement Award, and in 1989 named Carmen the Transit Manager of the Year. Sadly, Carmen was taken from us far too soon, in 1992 at the age of 61. She is sorely missed by so many of us. However, the legacy will live on, as it should. On May 12, Metro dedicated a memorial at the Smithsonian Metrorail Station in Carmen's memory. It is a fitting tribute that her memorial will be at a station where so many people enjoy the convenience of Metrorail. While here absence will always be felt, like many others I am proud that Carmen has been memorialized in this fashion. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in celebrating Carmen Turner's life and career and recognizing her many accomplishments.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill, and want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and members of the committee on both sides of the aisle, and the staff, for the work they have done. I want to change what I was going to say. I keep hearing about a tax cut. If this is for the tax cut, I say good. The American family is under more pressure today than any other time in the history of the country. Every indicator that you look at for the well- being of the family is going the wrong way. Child abuse is at an all time high, spouse abuse is at an all time high, teen suicide is at an all time high, teen pregnancy an all time high, teen violence an all time high. I say if this is to give a mom and a dad the opportunity to keep a little to vote twice for it, not once, but twice, if I could. That would not be bad. However, what we have done, I think, has been good. Additionally, I will put my statement in the Record on the demo projects. We are not going to have any demo projects in the transportation bill that comes out. They are all gone. I do not support them. I will never support a bill on this floor that has demos coming out of my committee, so we do not have to worry about them. Number two, the administration has never even called us. Our staff and Jim Tarnall asked the administration on the administrative costs. We cut $20 million out, the Senate cut $10, and we asked them over and over, ``Should it be 15? Should it be 12? What should it be?'' They would not even give it to us. I know why this bill is going to be vetoed, if it is. It is because of the reason I heard on public radio, yesterday, when they said ``It is a political reason. It is an opportunity to make a statement.'' Demos are gone. They did not talk to us, but if this money is used to help the American family, I say God bless, and we ought to be proud of it. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report, which provides supplemental appropriations for emergency disaster assistance for the Northridge earthquake, west- and Gulf-coasts floods, and recovery assistance for Oklahoma City, by rescinding $16.4 billion in budget and obligational authority in fiscal year 1995. Within the $16.4 billion, the conference report rescinds $2.728 billion from transportation programs. Rescissions in transportation programs are appropriate and necessary, particularly when the Congress is considering reductions in programs such as Headstart, hunger programs, immunizations, and breast cancer screening. Transportation programs should not be exempt. Furthermore, the transportation rescissions contained in this conference report are justified, reasonable and fair. The conference report contains rescissions in unavailable contract authority including: $2.1 billion for the airport improvement program; and $250 million for the magnetic levitation [MAGLEV] prototype train development. These balances of contract authority are moneys that cannot be spent in fiscal year 1995 due to other provisions of law, and therefore, these rescissions, when enacted, will have a negligible, if any, impact on transportation in this country. In addition, the conference report rescinds: $132 million in highway research and development programs, including $40 million in intelligent transportation systems; $42 million in the coast guard; and $40 million in transit research and discretionary grants, by reducing 50 percent of their obligated transit balances made available prior to fiscal year 1993. The conference report does not include a reduction in highway demonstration projects, as proposed by the Senate--a proposal which I believe has a great deal of merit and for which I am sympathetic. I am opposed to earmarking Federal moneys for highways demonstration projects, scarce transportation dollars must be carefully directed to programs addressing essential public safety needs rather than special projects. I have announced this to my colleagues, State transportation officials, industry representatives, and other interested parties. I have written letters and outlined my position in statements and meetings, and am underscoring my position here today. Simply put, it has become a choice between paying for the truly essential public safety needs or continuing to spend for these highway demonstration projects. To me, the choice is clear. Without regard to partisan politics, and without reference to the merits of any particular projects, the fiscal year 1996 transportation appropriations bill will contain no highway demonstration projects. With respect again to the conference report. It should be noted that since the Congress began to consider rescissions in January, and subsequent to the Senate's action in March, unobligated balance in the highway demonstration program accounts dating back to 1982 and 1987 have been reduced by nearly half. Unobligated balances have fallen from $252 million to $149 million today. And it is still dropping. The mere threat of this Congress rescinding these balances over the past 90 days has accomplished what the Federal Highway Administration and 52 State Departments of Transportation could not do over the past 13 years--that is to get these funds out on the streets for which they were appropriated. To that end, we have been successful. None of the transportation rescissions have been raised by the administration as egregious or needing to be restored. I urge my colleages to support this conference report.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the budget. I think it is fair. Let me take my hat off and pay special commendation to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], to his staff, and to the members of the Committee on the Budget. In the Book of Esther in the Old Testament, they said Esther was sent just for a time just like this. Perhaps John and the others on the Committee on the Budget have been sent for a time like this. I have given the speech over and over in the last several years about my five children and how important it was to balance the budget. I have heard Members on both sides give the same speech. I believe that the Kasich budget is fair. Clearly, we have to remember the poor, and I believe that we will remember the poor. But, clearly, this is the time, and if we do not do it now, will it be any easier, as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] talked, next year or the year after? Clearly, it will not be. We can argue about where we cut within the parameters of the budget, but, frankly, we cannot argue should we balance the budget, because we clearly should. In closing, one of the leading newspapers in my district the 10th District of Virginia, the Winchester Star, recently editorialized on the balanced budget effort with these words: And so at this time, perhaps it is best for us to draw upon the wisdom of pamphleteer Thomas Paine, who penned these immortal words in the darkest hours of the Revolution: ``These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.'' For the GOP, which has presented the first balanced budget plan in a quarter-century, this is definitely no time for ``summer soldiers.'' For a monumental battle, with significant ramifications for the future, will soon be enjoined. I strongly urge Members on both sides to put aside our differences and, whatever we do, to make sure when we leave tomorrow night we have passed the balanced budget, not only for our generation but, more important, for future generations. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 1996 budget resolution. I first want to congratulate Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich for his yeoman work to bring the House to this point in its history today. This is truly a historic day. The people's house is poised to secure the financial future of this Nation and I want to be on record in support of leading this Nation to a balanced budget by the year 2002. I recognize that there are differences of opinion on the direction we should take and the budget numbers we should use in reaching the goal of a balanced budget. But there should be no difference of opinion on the need for this Nation's financial house to be solvent; on the need to secure a prosperous future for our children, their children, and generations of Americans to come. I believe this blueprint for a balanced federal budget by the year 2002 will help secure that future and in so doing protect elderly citizens, protect middle class Americans, and protect future generations. There are many politically expedient statements being made today on what this budget does and does not do and about whom this budget hurts and helps. We have heard the statements that this budget callously targets the vulnerable and less fortunate in our society, that this budget cuts programs that benefit the poor and elderly to pay for tax cuts for the rich. My colleagues, that broken record some in this House keep spinning is becoming tired and worn rhetoric. I certainly would not be supporting any effort to balance the budget on the backs of the most needy of our citizens. Indeed, none of us would. The American people are tired of the carping and sniping and rhetoric. They want action. They want this House to work together in a bipartisan way to reduce the Federal deficit, stop the hemorrhaging national debt, and balance this Nation's budget. One of the leading newspapers in the 10th District of Virginia, The Winchester Star, recently editorialized on the balanced budget effort with these words: And so at this time, perhaps it is best for us to draw upon the wisdom of pamphleteer Thomas Paine, who penned these immortal words in the darkest hours of the Revolution: ``These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.'' For the GOP, which has presented the first balanced budget plan in a quarter-century, [[Page H5156]] this is definitely no time for `summer soldiers.' For a monumental battle, with significant ramifications for the future, will soon be enjoined. Mr. Chairman, I call on all our colleagues to not shrink from their responsibilities to the citizens of this Nation, to not be summer soldiers. I ask every member of this House to join in this historic opportunity to put this Nation on the right fiscal track and secure the financial future of America.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and, speaking as a member of the House Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations, which has jurisdiction over the Coast Guard, I would like to bring a couple of points to the body's attention. First, the Commandant of the Coast Guard knows his budget is being reduced as it is for every other part of the Federal Government. In a response, not necessarily anybody other than the Commandant has analyzed in depth the need for maintaining all of the service's small boat stations. What the Commandant found is that the service does not need all of the stations they have today. That is because of demographic changes and better operating procedures and the procurement of faster boats and helicopters. New technology enables us today to search a wider territory and get on scene in the required time without having a boat station right around the corner. I understand that no Member wants to lose a Coast Guard station in their district or in their State. I also understand that some States are harder hit by the Coast Guard plan than others. However, Members should know before voting on this amendment, this is not a budget- driven measure. It is done because it is sufficient. The General Accounting Office has reviewed the Coast Guard's processes for reviewing its needs for boat stations. They said it provides, and I quote, ``a reasonable basis for determining the appropriate number of stations and the appropriate resources of the stations.'' In fact, when GAO came up before the committee, we asked them about this, as we also did when we asked the Coast Guard. This was the same GAO, I would remind the Members, who 5 years ago refused to endorse the closure of any stations because the Coast Guard had not done its homework. This time they have. According to the Coast Guard they can perform the safe level of life saving with fewer stations and with the budget being reduced and then being more efficient. I also should let Members knows that funds are not included in the fiscal year 1996 budget for these stations. They are low-activity stations, and that is why they are on the Coast Guard list. If we prevent these stations from being closed, Mr. Chairman, we will have to cut $6 million from other parts of the Coast Guard's operating budget to pay for them, parts of the Coast Guard's operating budget that they do not want to see cut. This will have a much greater impact on safety, in my opinion. And in closing, Mr. Chairman, let me say, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, this amendment is opposed by the Department of Transportation and by the Coast Guard. There are no funds in the fiscal year 1996 budget to implement it without harming other programs. I urge the body to vote the amendment down.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, on April 25, 1995, in beautiful Warren County, Virginia, near the town of Front Royal, a group of Virginia's leaders headed by Governor George F. Allen gathered to dedicate a new State park in honor of House of Delegate member Raymond R. Guest, Jr. ``Andy'' Guest attended the dedication in his honor at the park which will provide several miles of riverfront recreational area along the Shenandoah River. Having just won a 2-year battle over cancer and poised to return for another term to the General Assembly where he has served since 1973, Andy was cited for his hard work and many years of leadership on behalf of Virginia State parks and recreational activities. Andy Guest has done so much to preserve this region which is the core of Civil War battlefields and the very heart of American history. When he is not in Richmond representing the people of Virginia's 15th House of Delegates district, Andy continues to live on his family farm near the banks of the famous Shenandoah River where he grew up. Nothing could be more appropriate and no recognition could be more deserved than to name a beautiful piece of Virginia along the serene but majestic Shenandoah River after one of Virginia's own first citizens: Raymond R. ``Andy'' Guest. Andy.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation for myself and Mr. Davis of Virginia, to provide financial relief to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority [WMATA] and to the citizens of the Washington metropolitan area by allowing for more flexibility in resolving labor disputes. Under the interstate compact establishing Metro, WMATA must have a balanced budget and Metro cannot provide service unless there are funds to pay for it. These funds are becoming more and more pinched by rising labor costs that threaten the affordability of the Metro system for the ridership. Labor costs at Metro are among the highest in the Nation in terms of operator salaries and benefits. For example, starting operator wages for bus drivers in New York City are $12.35 per hour compared to $13.76 in the District. The average annual wage for a Metrobus operator is currently $45,683. This is higher than the average wage for teachers in our area and is more than a GS-12 starting salary for many professionals in the Government. With overtime, Metrobus operator salaries can approach $60,000 to $70,000 per year, the equivalent salary of a GS-14 or GS-15 or an assistant school principal. In addition, Metro salaries and benefits are far higher than other transit operators in the region when compared with bus operators such as Montgomery County Ride-On or Fairfax Connector and Dash. The average annual wage for Ride-On, DASH, and Connector operators is $27,148, $25,459, and $23,400 respectively. These high comparative costs have made it very expensive for local governments to continue to contract with Metro bus service. As a result, local governments are increasingly choosing to provide their own service leaving Metro with fixed overhead costs to distribute among shrinking bus services. factors into consideration when evaluating wage scales. As a result, we will be simultaneously maintaining an affordable transit system, reducing the risk of massive job losses, and introducing more competition into area transit. This is a workable, practical and fair solution as we address the budget problems facing both the District and public transit in our area. As fares increase, ridership dwindles and a downward spiral continues. Metro management has testified before the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee that it is close to the point where higher rates will mean more Metro riders will return to their cars. For example, a single mother traveling from Vienna, VA, to downtown will spend approximately $8.50 per day in parking and Metro fares--nearly $200 per month. For a GS-7 earning some $24,000, and netting perhaps $1600-$1700 per month, this cost amounts to one-eighth of take home pay. Affordable public transportation is essential to the economic vitality of the Washington metropolitan area and to reviving the sagging economic fortunes of our Nation's Capital. Many low income and working individuals and families depend upon public transportation as their primary means of travel. However, use of mass transit is substantially affected by the fares charged for such mass transit services. Currently more than two-thirds of the cost of the Metro system is attributable to labor costs. Metro labor costs have increased at an alarming rate and are among the highest in the Nation. Salaries for Metro have gotten out of line with many other occupations in the area and with local bus systems. When evaluating and balancing competing needs, there has to be more flexibility in this area. That is what this legislation will do. It will provide for more consideration to be given to the impact that wage increases have on the ability of transit patrons and taxpayers to fund the increases through subsidies or at the fare box. This act will adopt standards governing the arbitration process when resolving disputes involving Metro labor issues. Over the past 5 years, Metro has reduced staff by more than 500 positions--almost 10 percent of the workforce. In the past year alone, it has cut over 250 positions, bringing the current personnel level to that in 1988, even though Metro has increased rail service by 64 percent since that time. But labor costs still are the major driver of increasing fares. If fares continue to increase, ridership will decline and other competitive systems will enter the system further driving down Metro ridership. At a time when we are facing severe budget limitations, we must think more creatively about how transit agencies can manage scarce Federal dollars. We must also face budgetary realities before they reach the crisis point. The current labor costs put the future of the Metro system on a collision course with the Metro ridership public. Already we have strongly competitive bus service in the area resulting in decreased bus ridership of Metro buses. When ridership goes down, jobs are lost and those in the areas with the least alternatives for transportation suffer the most. These areas usually serve the most economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. The financial difficulties faced by the District of Columbia threaten the ability to make operating subsidy payments that could result in further bus service reductions or route terminations on a very broad scale. Metro bus service has already been reduced by $5 million to meet current budget needs. As Metro general manager Lawrence Reuter recently testified before the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee on which I serve, Metro is working closely with Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and Members of Congress from this region to minimize the impacts of the District's financial crisis on Metro's ability to provide transit service throughout the region. As we work to find better solutions for the District of Columbia, providing more flexibility to Metro in labor disputes will assist in the bigger financial picture for the District.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, listening to the 1-minutes back in my office, I agreed with literally everything that was said by the Members of my side, all the help there is for American families in the tax cut bill. But if everything they said is true, and I believe it is true, why would not the same help be given to Federal employees? I have been a leader in the family issues for Federal employees and non-Federal employees for the 102nd Congress and the 103rd Congress. The FBI agent that everyone here would call if their husband or wife or kids were kidnapped is a Federal employee. The cancer researcher out at NIH that everyone would call quickly if someone in your family had cancer is a Federal employee. The Secret Service agent, Timothy McCarthy, that stopped the bullet that saved the live of Ronald Reagan is a Federal employee. So I say to my side, I agree with everything you have said, because the American family is under more pressure today than any other time in the history of the country. But if this is good for American families, it should be good for the families of Federal employees. Mr. Speaker, I urge the leadership of my side to remove the provision which increases the payroll tax on Federal employees. it should never see the light of day and should not pass. Mr. Speaker, as one of the first Members of Congress to call for family tax relief, I am tax credit for families with children. This is a much needed tax credit to correct the tax inequity for families that has developed over the years when the deduction for children was not indexed. The capital gains tax cut, and the easing of the marriage penalty are also to be commended. It is time that we allow hard working American families to keep more of their hard earned money. This bill is a strong package to do that. However, I come to the floor very troubled and disappointed. In what was otherwise a good bill for families and economic growth, the leadership has chosen to include a tax on Federal employees in this bill. For middle-class Federal employees this is bad news. We are making a very hasty decision regarding the largest single employer in the United States when the pension system we are supposedly correcting faces no shortfall of legally available budget authority to pay benefits. There is no crisis here. Yet we are including a tax that will hit middle-class Federal employees so hard that it will eliminate for most any of the benefits of this legislation. That I believe is unfair and a mistake. Federal employees are virtually all middle-class taxpayers. We promised no tax increases on middle-class Americans; yet we have picked on a politically unpopular target. I am frustrated to be put in such an untenable situation. This was not in the Contract With America and it was rushed into this bill in fundamental violation of our promise of no new taxes. If any action in this area were to be taken it should be more properly taken in the context of an overall entitlement reform effort that objectively looks at the need, if any, to improve the civil service system. I was calling for family tax relief in the 102d Congress and 103rd Congress when Republicans in the White House, on the Ways and Means Committee and the Budget Committee wouldn't give it the time of day. Many Democrats also opposed it because they wanted the money to fund more Government programs. Yet my bill for family tax relief garnered bipartisan support of 263 cosponsors in the 102d Congress. Raising taxes to fund a tax cut was never part of this picture. So why sully our tax package now with a tax increase? Using a tax increase to balance is merely a return to failed policies of the past. President Bush didn't balance the budget by raising taxes and neither did President Clinton. In fact, in raising taxes both broke their promise to the American people. To include this tax on Federal employees in this bill we will also be breaking our promise in the Contract not to raise taxes. We are repealing the Social Security tax increase which the Democrats passed to balance the budget because it hit many middle-class retirees. Why repeat that mistake by picking on another group? And why repeat the disasters of the past in breaking promises on tax increases? A fundamental tenet of the Contract With America is a commitment to no new taxes. Once we cede the tax issue in any area we will be open to the argument that it is OK to raise taxes--it just depends upon whose. We shouldn't be talking about raising anybody's taxes. But this bill singles out Federal employees for a dramatic increase in payroll taxes. For example, an FBI agent with two children earning $50,000 will pay an additional $250 a year to the Federal Government even with the $500 tax credit. This is a $1,250 hit without the tax credit. The 2.5 percent increase in Federal payroll taxes represents a 36-percent payroll tax increase. If this was being done to any other workers in this country, Republicans would never stand for it. The Federal retirement system provision that was put into this bill is even more onerous than the provision proposed in the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, where, by the way, the proposal couldn't even make it out of the civil service subcommittee. There were only 2 days of hearings on this very complicated issue and quite frankly there were many issues unresolved. As our Rules Chairman has noted, this is not a good precedent to be setting. Furthermore, most management experts will tell you that as you are downsizing it is important not to demoralize the remaining staff. Hitting Federal employees across the board with a payroll tax like this in conjunction with massive downsizing efforts will have a devastating impact on morale at a critical time. The issue of unfunded liabilities in the Federal pension system is still open to considerable debate and quite frankly is a debate I would be happy to have in a timely and thoughtful manner. When Congress originally set up the new retirement system and integrated it with the old system in the mid-80s we spent months and months hearing from experts. Senator Stevens led the effort in the other body to see that this system was reformed in a sound and fair manner. To that end, I believe we now have a workable system. The Congressional Research Service reported that the Federal retirement system trust fund balance is adequate to provide needed budget authority on an ongoing basis. The combined funded and unfunded liabilities of the old retirement system is the amount the Government would have to pay all at one time if everyone who is or who ever has been a vested CSRS participant could demand a check for the present value of all the benefits to which they would be entitled from that time throughout retirement until their death, taking into account future pay raises they might receive and cost-of-living adjustments after retirement. As CRS noted, this event cannot happen in the Federal Retirement System. Federal pension obligations will just not come due all at one time. Furthermore, given the large downsizing effort in progress, the pension liabilities will be dramatically reduced in coming years. And that is just one more reason why it is particularly unfair that Federal employees will see this huge jump in their payroll tax--many of them will be gone before their pension even vests. Rather than include this complex issue in this tax bill, perhaps we need to establish a bipartisan commission to look at federal pensions as well as the potential liabilities in the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Finally, my understanding of the Contract was that we were fundamentally rejecting the idea of raising taxes to balance the budget and just saying NO to tax increases in all shapes and forms. To include a tax increase in this bill fundamentally violates the anti-tax spirit of the Contract. To add this payroll tax when there are important issues still open to debate is particularly unwise. This is bad policy, bad politics and it is a breach of faith to those who support a tax break for the American family but can't accept an unfair tax hike on middle-class government employees.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I submitted for the Record the testimony of three survivors of the Chinese laogai. The witnesses testified before the International Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights on April 3. The stories are powerful accounts of brave Chinese men and women who have suffered tremendously because of their religion or political views. Today, I am submitting the testimony of two more survivors--Mr. Liu Xinhu, who was imprisoned at the age of 13 because his father was a so-called counter- revoluntionary and Palden Gyatso, a Tibetan monk who spent 33 years in the laogai. I hope my colleagues and the American people will be enlighted and moved by these stories. Many people like Mr. Xinhu and Palden Gyatso are still suffering in China today. We must not forget them. Testimony of Liu Xinhu, Laogai Survivor My name is Liu Xinhu. Because my father was an official in the former government, the Communist Party, on the pretext that he would disrupt labor discipline, arrested and sent him to a ``reeducation through labor'' (laojiao) prison camp in 1958. He was sent to the Baimaoling Farm to serve his sentence. In 1973, having lost all hope and deeply impoverished in the hell of the hard labor farm, he committed suicide. I was born in 1945. When I was 13 years old in 1958, because I was the eldest son in the family of a counter- revolutionary, the Communist government found an excuse which had absolutely no legal precedent, and sent me to live at the same Laogai prison farm as my father. In 1964, when I had just turned eighteen years old, the Communist government sentenced me to two years reeducation through labor because of what they called ``counter-revolutionary activities''. After being released from the laojiao sentence at the farm in 1966, I was ordered to continue forced labor at the farm as a ``forced-job-placement'' (jiuye) worker. I was once again labeled a ``counter-revolutionary element'' in 1974 because of my ``political attitudes'', farm were further strengthened. I was detained straight through until my release in 1983. During the twenty-five years I spent in the Laogai, I suffered innumerable beatings and torments; I clearly remember one occasion when I was unable to fulfill my production quota because I was very sick, the public security police stripped me of my clothes, tied me to a tree trunk, and allowed the mosquitoes and insects to bite me for more than two hours. The Baimaoling Farm is internally known as the Shanghai Number Two Laogai General Brigade. It is located in the southeast area of Anhui Province. Its scale is enormous and it holds, on average, 50,000 Laogai prisoners, laojiao prisoners, and jiuye personnel. It produces tea, rice, valves, and toys, as well as other goods. My father and I were detained in different sections of the farm, and we were not permitted to see each other. The public security police only told me in 1973 that he had died, and I had to go and claim the corpse. Once at the crematorium, I saw his old and pale body. I was given those clothes. I cried bitterly. I felt that my father was more brave than I was because he dared to determine his own end to this difficult life and gain his freedom. I now live in the United States and have a family and children of my own. I deeply hope that my children and all other children, as well as all future generations, do not have ever to suffer through these kinds of tortures and difficulties. Thank you all very much for your concerns about the Chinese citizens who continue to suffer in the Laogai to this very day.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, as the first Member of Congress to introduce the family tax credit in the 103d Congress, I am troubled with the tax bill we will vote on this week which includes a much-needed $500 tax credit for families with children on one hand but also includes a payroll tax increase on Federal employees on the other. Federal employees are virtually all middle-class taxpayers. We promised no tax increases on middle-class Americans. And I am personally very disappointed to be put in such an untenable position. I was calling for the family tax relief in the 102d Congress and the 103d Congress when Republicans in the White House and many in Congress would not give it the time of day. Yet my bill for family tax relief garnered bipartisan support for 263 cosponsors in the 102d Congress. Raising taxes to fund a tax cut was never part of the picture. So why sully our tax package now with a tax increase? President Bush did not balance the budget by raising taxes and neither did President Clinton. We will be breaking our promise in the contract not to raise taxes. Therefore, I hope that it will not only be those Republicans with large numbers of Federal employees in their districts who will oppose payroll tax hikes own certain groups but all on our side on the aisle who signed the contract as well as those Democrats who oppose increasing taxes on the middle class. We are repealing in this bill the Social Security tax increase which the Democrats passed to balance the budget because it hit many middle- class retirees. Why repeat that mistake by picking on another group? And why repeat the disasters of the past in breaking promises on tax increases? A fundamental tenet of the Contract With America is the commitment to no new taxes. Once we cede the tax issue in any area we will be open to the argument that it is OK to raise taxes; it just depends upon whose. We should not be talking about raising anybody's taxes. But this bill singles out Federal employees for a dramatic increase in payroll taxes. For example, an FBI agent, who everyone in this body would call if your wife or husband or children was kidnaped, an FBI agent with two children earning $50,000 will pay an additional $250 a year to the Federal Government even with the $500 tax credit. This is a $1,250 hit without the tax credit. The provision that was put into the bill is even more onerous than the provision proposed in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and that was unable to even make it out of committee. There were only 2 days of hearings on this very complicated issue and, quite frankly, there was still many issues unresolved. This is not a good precedent to be setting. Furthermore, most management experts will tell you that as you are downsizing it is important not to demoralize the remaining staff. Let me just say it again. As you are downsizing it is important not to demoralize the remaining staff. Hitting Federal employees across the board with a payroll tax like this in conjunction with downsizing efforts will have a devastating impact on morale at a critical time. What Federal employees? FBI agents, DEA agents that are keeping drugs out of schools, CIA agents, Secret Service agents that would stop the bullet that kills the President of the United States like Timothy McCarthy who saved President Reagan's life. Cancer research at NIH. When you downsize you treat the people you keep well and you do not demoralize them. This issue of unfunded liabilities in the Federal pension system is still open to considerable debate. The Congressional Research Service reported that the trust fund balance is adequate to provide needed budget authority on an ongoing basis. The combined funded and unfunded liabilities of the old retirement system is the amount that the Government would have to pay all at one time if everyone who is or who has ever been a vested CSRS participant could demand a check for the present value of all the benefits to which they would be entitled from that time throughout retirement until their death, taking into account future pay raises they might receive and cost-of-living adjustments after retirement. As the CRS noted, ``This event cannot happen in the Federal retirement system.'' Federal pension obligations would not just come due all at once, at one time. Furthermore, given the large downsizing effort in progress, the pension liabilities will be dramatically reduced in coming years, and this is just one more reason why it is particularly unfair that Federal employees will see the huge jump in their payroll tax. Some of them will be gone before this pension even vests. Instead of including this complex issue in this tax bill, perhaps we need a bipartisan commission to look at it. I am asking that the tax increase provision be removed and that we complete the final plank in the contract without any tax increase. I include for the Record a memorandum and letters to Mr. Darman. Library of Congress, Washington, DC, March 18, 1995. Subject: Federal Civil Service Retirement: Is There a Financing or Funding Problem? From: Carolyn L. Merck, Specialist in social legislation, Education and Public Welfare Division. Two questions have been raised recently regarding the Federal Civil Service Retirement System [CSRS]. First, is the ``unfunded liability'' of the CSRS a problem that needs to be fixed to avoid steep increases in outlays from the Treasury or increases in the deficit? Second, is the system now insolvent, or will it become insolvent in the future? The answer to both of these questions is ``no.'' background From 1920 until 1984 the CSRS was the retirement system for most Federal employees. In 1935, Congress enacted social security for private sector workers. In 1983, when social security funding was running low, Congress brought cash into that system by mandating (among other things) social security coverage and payroll taxes for all Federal workers entering civil service employment on or after January 1, 1984. Because social security benefits would duplicate some CSRS benefits, Congress closed the CSRS to new participants at the end of 1983 and designed the Federal Employees' Retirement System [FERS] to coordinate with social security. A primary objective of Congress in designing a new system was to create a retirement plan like those commonly found in the private sector. Congress crafted FERS during 2 years of careful analysis of alternatives and planned for a smooth funding transition from CSRS to FERS. Total annual benefit costs for current Federal retirees and survivors were about $36 billion in FY 1994. About $9.7 billion in receipts were credited to the retirement trust fund account of the Treasury from payroll withholding from current workers along with payments from the U.S. Postal Service and the Government of the District of Columbia. These cash receipts are converted to Federal securities and are deposited in the one retirement trust fund that finances both CSRS and FERS. Other annual trust fund receipts in the form of Federal securities total about $53.8 billion and are deposited according to formulas established in law to prefund partially future retirement benefits and to pay interest on the securities in the fund. In total, the trust fund received $63.5 billion in FY 1994 and spent about $36 billion for benefits. The deposit of securities in the trust fund is an ``intragovernmental transfer'' between accounts of the Treasury; it does not constitute an outlay from the Treasury and has no effect on the budget deficit. Benefit payments and administrative costs are the only expenditures of the Treasury for the retirement system. Because the trust fund receives more income each year than is debited for benefits, its balance continues to grow. is the unfunded csrs liability a budget problem? The liabilities of a retirement system are the costs of benefits promised to workers and retirees. A retirement system is ``fully funded'' if a trust fund holds assets approximately equal to the present value of all future benefit promises to which retirees and vested employees are entitled (``vesting'' in the Federal plans requires 5 years of employment covered by the system). ``Unfunded liabilities'' are earned benefits for which assets have not been set aside in a retirement fund. As of the end of FY 1993, the Federal retirement trust fund held $276.7 billion in assets for the CSRS, or about 34 percent of long-term CSRS pension liabilities (the fund balance represents ``funded liabilities''). Thus, the unfunded CSRS liability was $538.3 billion. The unfunded liability developed because the CSRS funding laws have not required the Government to fund the system fully. Nevertheless, the primary purpose of the Federal trust fund is not to provide a source of cash for the Government, but to provide budget authority to allow the Treasury to disburse monthly annuity checks without annual appropriations. The trust fund balance is adequate to provide this budget authority on an ongoing basis. The combined funded and unfunded liabilities of the CSRS, $815 billion in FY 1993, is the amount the Government would have to pay all at one time if everyone who is or who ever has been a vested CSRS participant could demand a check for the present value of all the benefits to which they would be entitled from that time throughout retirement until their death (or their survivor's death), taking into account future pay raises they might receive (which affect the annuity at retirement) and cost-of-living adjustments after retirement. This event cannot happen in the Federal retirement system. Federal pension obligations cannot come due all at one time, unlike the situation that arises in the private sector when an employer goes out of business and must pay all promised pension obligations at once. Some of the Government's liabilities represent payments due to current retirees, who receive their benefits 1 month at a time throughout retirement; others represent payments that will not commence for years to come because the workers are not yet eligible for retirement. By the time they become eligible, others currently retired will have died. Thus, unlike private employers, the Government need not fully prefund the retirement system in order to insure against having to pay off all earned benefits simultaneously. Some are concerned that the existence of unfunded Federal pension liabilities has, or will have in the future, an effect on the budget deficit and/or the need for tax revenues. The annual budget cost to the Government of CSRS (or any retirement system) can never be more than the sum of the checks written to annuitants 1 month at a time. Thus, the liabilities of the system, funded or unfunded, will never require payments from the Treasury in excess of the benefits payable to living, retired workers or survivors. However, the cash to pay monthly benefits comes from general revenues, and paying monthly benefits creates an outlay from the budget and therefore contributes to the budget deficit, as does any Government spending. Consequently, in times of tight budgets, Congress often considers benefit cuts in order to reduce spending. This would be true if the program were fully funded and had no unfunded liability, or, conversely, if there were no trust fund and the program were totally unfunded. The CSRS is an employer-provided defined benefit system, which is the type of plan provided by many private employers for their employees and by most State and local governments. Under all defined benefit pension plans, public and private, the employer bears the responsibility for financing and paying most or all of the cost of benefits. Defined benefit pensions are deferred compensation, meaning the employer defers paying employees' compensation during their working years in favor of proving a specified level of compensation throughout retirement years. Private employers finance employees' pensions from invested income derived from the sale of goods or services. Analogously, the employer of Federal workers is the American taxpayer. The resources the Government has to meet its employer obligations to finance the current and deferred compensation of its employees are Federal tax revenues.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I just returned from one of the most moving hearings I have ever attended. Six survivors of the Chinese labor camp system, the Laogai, told their stories of life inside the prison. These are stories every Member of Congress and every American the Record. The others will follow in coming days. I hope all my colleagues will take these powerful stories to heart. Our China policy does not take these brave people, and the many like them who are still suffering in China today, into account. Testimony of Tang Boiqiao, Laogai Survivor, before the U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, April 3, 1995 My name is Tang Boiqiao, and I am a former student of the Hunan Teachers' College. In July of 1989, I was arrested by the Communists because of my organizing and participating in the Hunan students' movement. I was held until July of 1990 before finally being sentenced to three years detention. My ``crime'' was called ``counter-revolutionary propagandizing and incitement''. In October of that year, I was transferred to the Hunan Province Longxi Prison for reform through labor. In January 1991, I was unexpectedly released from prison. After my release, I was again arrested because of my continued involvement in the popular movements and human rights activities. Following the summer of 1991, I fled China. In April of 1992, I entered the United States and sought political asylum. My reason for coming here today is to share with you my experiences while in the Laogai. I was first arrested in July of 1989 in Guangdong Province, after which I was held in three different detention centers where I was forced to labor with my fellow prisoners. While at the Guangdong Number 1 Detention Center, I made toys which had the words ``Made in China'' in English written on them. I was allowed to eat only twice a day. Next, I was transferred to Changsha in Hunan and spent more than a year at the Changsha Number 1 Detention Center. During this time, I suffered through the darkest and most hopeless of existences; for more than four months straight, I was questioned about my case an average ten hours a day, in what the Communists call ``exhaustive tactics''. This Laogai forced its prisoners to produce matchboxes. There were no labor rewards, but every month the cellmates which had the highest production numbers were given one cheap cigarette a day. The police forced the prisoners to work day and night so that they could report increased production output and receive cash incentives. We would work for at the least twelve hours a day. The longest day was one when we worked for 23 and a half hours, with a half-hour food break. Because I would refuse to work, the public security police would often arrange for the other prisoners to abuse and beat me. One day, I was beaten three different times by seven or eight young prisoners, two of whom were convicted murderers. The first time, because I was unwilling to be forced to labor, they beat me until I bled from the eyes, ears, nose and mouth; the second time, because I resisted when they tried to force me to kneel down, they used anything they could find in the cell to beat me, including a wooden stool, heavy wooden sticks, and metal cups and bowls; the last time they beat me while I couldn't move and lay on the floor hunched over. At this, the public security police still were not satisfied, so that evening they held a ``struggle meeting'' and ordered every prisoner in the Laogai to viciously beat me. That night, I developed a fever of 104 degrees, which persisted for more than a week. I was unable even to sit upright. While there were many methods used in torturing people at this Laogai, the most often used tools were the electric police baton and shackles. There were more than ten types of shackles, including thumb shackles, ``earth'' shackles, all kinds of wrist shackles, chain shackles, chain link shackles, door-frame shackles, heavy shackles, and others. The most simple method was to conduct a political study class where the prisoners needed to attend for long periods of time while shackled. I personally experienced electric shocks and many kinds of shackles. The Laogai prisons used different types of abuse and control than those of the detention centers. After I was transferred to the prison, when I was first assigned to a prison brigade, we were shown the three unforgettable phrases that were written on the wall at the prison entrance: ``Where are you? What are you? What are you to do here?'' Later, in the daily ``political study'' classes, we needed to follow these questions with the responses, ``This is a prison. I am a criminal. I am here to receive reform through labor.'' We also had to sing three songs at the beginning of every ``political study'' class. The songs were ``Socialism Is Good'', ``Without the Communist Party, There Would Be No New China'', and ``Emulate Lei Feng'' (Lei Feng was a 1950's Chinese Communist martyr). I still remember the songs. The words of ``Socialism Is Good'' begin, ``Socialism is good/ Socialism is good/ Everyone in a socialist society is improved''. The lyrics of ``Without the Communist Party, There Would Be No New China'' are ``Without the Communist Party, there would be no new china/ the Communist Party is united for the people/ the Communist Party is united to save China/ Its leaders go forward towards the light/ It is the great leader of all the people.'' The meaning of the last song is that we should all be like the Communist hero Lei Feng; ``Loyal to the revolution/ Loyal to the Party/ Standing in the field, erect and unwaving/ Communist thinking emits knowledge''. I knew that this was how they would force us to reform our thinking, so I refused to sing the three songs. The police used many methods of trying to intimidate and coerce me into cooperating, and in the end I was sent to the ``prison of prisons''--solitary confinement. Its length and height are barely enough for a man's size, and it has solid walls with only a tiny slot on the door. It very easily makes men think like an animal in a cage. It can be said that being confined in a small cage for a long period of time will certainly make any man go insane. These are only some of the stories of my time in the Laogai. Yet all of the mistreatment and abuse I suffered in the Laogai is just a drop of water in a great river. When you think of all of the abuses of the millions of Chinese citizens still condemned to the Laogai, my story is just the tip of the iceberg. Thank you for your time in listening to my personal story of the terrors of the Laogai. Testimony of Catherine Ho, Laogai Survivor, Before the U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, April 3, 1995 My name is Catherine Ho, one of the goals of the Laogai camps is to break the human spirit through torture of the body. But even worse than the bodily abuses is the unceasing assault on the prisoner's thoughts and individual will. This is especially true of the suffering endured by the millions of women condemned to the Laogai. I was born into a well-educated family in Shanghai. My decent parents sent me to an excellent Catholic high school. I became a Christian while there. I studied very hard, and should have had a bright future. Instead, I was arrested and imprisoned by the Communist government before I was even 18 years old. I was arrested on September 5, 1955, as was our bishop in Shanghai, Cardinal Kung, who is now in the U.S. receiving medical care. Between 1953 and 1955, the church-run schools and hospitals in Shanghai were taken over by the Communists. The church's other charitable institutions were simply closed. The foreign missionaries has already been expelled as ``imperialists''. The Chinese priests and bishops were all targets of the Communists and were either killed or arrested one after another. Most Christians were forced to go through brainwashing. They faced losing their jobs or educational opportunities, and they also faced being sent to the Laogai camps or prison to suffer because of their faith. Religious people were continuously persecuted by the Communists. We did not oppose the government. We only wanted to practice our religion. But the Communists said it was a crime against China. The sole reason I was put in jail was because I was an active Christian. I was a member of the Legion of Mary, which is a devout missionary organization. I did missionary work. I refused to renounce our church and did not want to be a part of the Communist controlled church. Because of my faith, they put me in jail. They isolated me from the outside world. They tried to confuse me with all of their propaganda. But I knew they told lies. I could not go against my conscience. I could not deny the truth. I could not give up my most precious gift, my faith. Many Christians were willing to die before giving up their faith. At first, they sentenced me to seven years in the Laogai as a ``counter-revolutionary''. I was not allowed legal representation. I did not even have a trial. When they found out that I had still not changed my mind after my seven years, they wouldn't let me go. They kept me in the Laogai camp for 21 years. The Chinese Communists cannot tolerate religion, especially the Christian religion. They have a hatred for anything which involves a belief in any God above or beyond human kind. To this day, they are still persecuting and imprisoning religious believers. I would like to now give you some examples of the systematic abuse and persecution of the Laogai camps. These Laogai camps are in no way like the prisons we know of in this country. Words are not enough to convey the horrible, day to day realities of prisoners in the Laogai. Physically, we were always hungry, tired, and filthy. The women were forced to do heavy labor, like plowing the desert, raising cattle, or running a tea farm. They physical tortures on our bodies were so extreme that menstruation ceased in many of the women. This puts great strain on both a woman's body and her mind. There were never any medical treatments of this or other sicknesses. Despite these exhaustive and grueling conditions, we were forced to produce high level products. For example, I was in a Laogai camp tea farm for about ten years. The women prisoners were forced to plant trees, take care of the plants, and then process the tea leaves into red or green tea. I spent another four years weaving silk and cloth in a Laogai factory. On the surface, it was a textile factory in Hangzhou, but the workers were all women prisoners doing forced labor. In the factory, there were two constant pressures upon us: first was the physical fatigue, I was forced to work very hard for fourteen hours a day. I had to fight exhaustion just to keep from falling into the machines; second was the constant supervision, since we were to foreign countries, they watched our every move to be sure we made no mistakes. If there were mistakes or someone did not appear to be working hard, we were severely punished. They used ankle fetters, handcuffs, solitary confinement, and other means to punish us. Today, I often wonder if the tea I drink or the silk I weave comes from a Laogai camp and is made by all those poor Laogai slaves still suffering in China. Daily, we were assaulted mentally. We were continually brainwashed. We were not allowed to say our prayers or to read the Bible. I remember clearly my first day in the detention center. I knelt down on the muddy ground, bowed my head, and begged to the Lord to give me strength. A warden immediately scolded me, ``Who told you to kneel down? Even at the door of death, you keep up your superstitions. This is a counter-revolutionary activity.'' In the Laogai, we were not allowed to hear and read anything but Communist propaganda. We had to spend two hours every day reading Mao's book and reciting the prison regulations. I remember one sixty-year- old Sister who made a set of small rosary beads out of a thread so it would not be discovered and be confiscated by the guards. This continuous brainwashing helped destroy all human love and was a denial of all basic human rights. Spiritually, it was a constant struggle. We faced constant despair, and always heard the discouraging and threatening comments of the authorities. A prisoner had to confess her crime everyday, which meant scolding oneself and accusing oneself of being guilty of the greatest crimes against the people and government. Every prisoner was degraded. They minimized their own value of being human. They were separated from their families and society. They were tortured in a dark hell that had no foreseeable end. They fought the despair and hopelessness of thinking that they were to spend the rest of their lives as slaves in the Laogai. One woman refused to work on Sundays. She would say prayers instead of singing revolutionary songs in front of Mao's portrait. One day, she was dragged out to the field where we were working and beaten to death in front of all of us. I said the Communists aim was to torture the body and break the human spirit in every possible way and at every possible opportunity. When the warden told me my lovely sister had died, he simply said, ``The People's Government acted humanely . . . it is all over now . . . you should not cry because that's against the rules and it would have a bad effect on the feelings of the others about thought reform''. They succeeded to the point where to many it looked like there was no future and no hope. The prisoners in the Laogai camp were always in a deep depression. I myself prayed to God to let me die. I wanted to die more than I wanted to live because the circumstances were too horrible. Even if you didn't want to continue living under those circumstances, they wouldn't let you die. There was a constant suicide watch. God sustained us nonetheless. My faith preserved me. God's Grace helped me live through this nightmarish journey. Finally, my prayers were answered. After my parents had written many, many letters to the government from Hong Kong, my husband, my son, and I were allowed to leave the Laogai in December 1978. Today, I sit before you to take this opportunity to tell you the truth. To tell you the facts as I have myself experienced. But I speak not for myself, but for the thousands of brothers and sisters who are still living this terrible existence. Thank you for listening to my story. I hope that you may better understand the realities of the Laogai through my account of it. Testimony of Father Cai Zhongxian, Laogai Survivor, Before the U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, April 3, 1995 My name is Cai Zhongxian. I am a Catholic priest. I was ordained in 1940. I was arrested and charged as a counter-revolutionary in 1953 because of my refusal to cooperate with the Communist authorities and denounce the Roman Catholic Church. I was unexpectedly released without explanation in 1956. It turned out that the Communists hoped that the leniency showed to me would convince me to collaborate with the Party to persuade other Catholics to become members of the officially sanctioned ``Patriotic Catholic Church''. This ``Patriotic Catholic Church'' is nothing more than a Communist puppet organization. When I refused to cooperate, I was once again arrested. I was detained twice for a total of seven years at the Shanghai Detention Center, without charge or trial, until I was finally sentenced to a fifteen-year term in 1960. I was then sent to a Laogai camp in Jiangxi Province which served as a brick factory. I avoided dying of starvation mostly because I supplemented the rationed food by eating frogs, snakes, and rats. In 1962, five other priests and I were confined in a six- by-twelve foot windowless room that was filled with four inches of standing water. Despite this ill-treatment and other inhumane conditions, I continued my services as a Catholic clergy. I even successfully converted some of the guards who were charged to watch us to Catholicism. At the completion of my sentence, I was 62 years old. I was not fully released at that time. The government forced me to accept ``forced-job-placement'' in the Laogai camp because I was originally charged with a ``counter-revolutionary crime''. I knew that a ``forced-job-placement'' assignment meant a life sentence laboring at the Laogai. I labored at the Nanchang Number 4 Prison for eleven years as a ``forced- job-placement'' worker. In 1981, at the age of 74, I was again arrested for my continued activities as a Catholic priest. I was sentenced to serve another ten-year term as a Laogai slave. In 1988, I was released fully as a token of good will towards Filipino Bishop Sinhemai. I was 81 years old at the time of my release. I served a total of thirty-three years in the Laogai. I can't begin to tell you how many people disappear completely for every one that survives. Thank you for inviting me here. I hope I have helped you gain an understanding of the Communist government's willingness to use the Laogai to destroy its citizens lives.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues information concerning the naming of the main building of the Locust Grove campus of Germanna Community College of Virginia in honor of Congressman D. French Slaughter, Jr. The special dedication ceremony will take place on April 21, 1995, in Locust Grove, VA. French Slaughter is a 20-year veteran of the Virginia General Assembly and was the chief patron of the State Community College Act of 1966. In 1969 he was a key leader in founding Germanna Community College upon the distinctive historical 100 acre site it now occupies. Upon retiring from the House of Representatives in 1991, he donated his personal papers and other memorabilia to the college. This collection will be on display at the dedication. Our colleague worked hard to create educational opportunities for all people. He provided vision, support, and strong leadership in pursuing this goal. His efforts were key in helping so many individuals in quest of a dream; a dream of higher education which, to many, became a reality. Germanna Community College is providing a fitting tribute to our former colleague who worked so hard and achieved much success in the pursuit of education for the people of Virginia.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, we began the 104th Congress with a commitment to improve the House schedule to make this Congress more family friendly, recognizing that the first 100 days of this session would be devoted to fulfilling the legislation promised in the Contract With America entailing long days and a full House schedule during this time. We have worked hard to keep on that contract schedule and trying to balance the floor schedule with time for family has been difficult. But I believe there are a few ways we can adjust the House floor routine in an effort to improve upon the family friendliness of this Congress. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, for at least the remainder of the 100- day period, that we consider starting the floor schedule earlier each day, with goal of ending sooner in the evenings. Morning hours could be suspended, 1-minutes could be held to a half hour, or even better delayed until the end of business. Consideration could even be given to suspending special orders. At least provide the floor staff with some help when the schedule goes into the late hours so that the staff can spend some time with their families. Mr. Speaker, schedules, nerves, and tempers are beginning to fray. An earlier starting time could not only help in moving the House's business along, but it could also allow some additional family time, and truly make this a family friendly Congress.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I commend to our colleagues' attention a speech given recently by Baroness Caroline Cox, Deputy Speaker of Britain's House of Lords, when she received the William Wilberforce Award. The award, named after the great 19th century political reformer who dedicated his career to outlawing the slave trade in England, is given to a person who exhibits moral witness and willingness to stand up for unpopular causes. Lady Cox is a woman with a heart for the suffering, the oppressed, and the persecuted. Her work and that of Christian Solidarity International, an interdenominational Christian human rights organization, has brought hope to thousands. I have travelled with Lady Cox and have been a witness to the way she ministers--showing love, respect, and compassion equally for the little children and high-level government officials. She is a woman who lives out her faith in Jesus Christ by doing what He admonishes in Matthew 25: When I was hungry you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was in prison and you came to visit me. * * * Whatever you do for the least of these, you also do for me. The work of Christian Solidarity International may not be well-known to us here, but it is well-known to the Armenians in war-torn Nagorno- Karabakh who had their pain relieved when CSI brought desperately needed medical supplies to the tiny beleaguered enclave. It is well- known to the thousands of Russian orphans who without the help of CSI would have been left in mental institutions devoid of hope for a productive future. It is well known to the suffering people in southern Sudan whose voice has been heard due to the constant advocacy of Baroness Cox and the CSI team. And it is well-known to the Karen Christians in Burma who, as I am speaking, are fighting for their lives against the military junta that is battling for control in that country. Baroness Cox responds in faith to bring hope to countless millions. She stands up for justice for the persecuted. In the words of Prison Fellowship founder Chuck Colson, ``As William Wilberforce was a voice for the voiceless and stood against his party and fellow Parliamentarians in his campaign to end the slave trade in eighteenth- century England, so is Baroness Cox. With Christian compassion fused with fierce courage, Lady Cox continues to shun mere observation for frontline participation.'' William Wilberforce would have been proud. Wilberforce Award Banquet--Presented by Chuck Colson, Prison Fellowship The following speech was given by the Baroness Caroline Cox of Queensbury, Deputy Speaker of Britain's House of Lords, on February 1, 1995 in Washington, DC, during the events surrounding the National Prayer Breakfast, Baroness Cox was honored for her courageous acts and stand for justice on behalf of the suffering and oppressed people of the world. In the words of Chuck Colson: ``As William Wilberforce was a voice for the voiceless and stood against his party and fellow Parliamentarians in his campaign to end the slave trade in eighteenth-century England, so is Baroness Cox. With Christian compassion fused with fierce courage, Lady Cox continues to shun mere observation for frontline participation.'' Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Guests, Brothers and Sisters in Christ, I stand before you this evening filled with deep emotions. First, I feel both humble and proud to be associated with the name of William Wilberforce. Wilberforce used to be described as a ``shrimp''; I feel about the same size as a shrimp in comparison with him and also with the distinguished predecessors who have been honored with the Award in previous years. But I am also full of gratitude for the opportunity this occasion gives me to pay tribute to those in Christian Solidarity International (CSI) who make my work possible and, above all, I value the opportunity to honour the suffering people whom it has been our privilege to be with in dark and difficult days--people suffering from oppression, persecution, slavery and attempted genocide. I would therefore like to spend some of my allotted time saying a few words about the work of CSI, without whom I would not be here tonight, and then to spend the rest of my time honouring those people whom we try to serve, who always inspire us with their courage, generosity, graciousness, faith and dignity. CSI is an interdenominational Christian human rights organization which tries to help victims of repression, regardless of their colour, creed or nationality. But as Christians, we have an additional concern; we are reminded of St. Paul's message to the church in Corinth, that when one part of the body of Christ suffers, all suffer. CSI's particular focus is on forgotten peoples in forgotten lands; on places which do not appear on your TV screens or the front pages of newspapers. We try to be with those who feel--and are--forgotten by the rest of the world, including often, by the rest of the Christian church. Many of the big humanitarian organizations have to respect political constraints, in order to accomplish their work. This means there are some people who are suffering in repressive regimes whom they cannot help. But we are free to put human rights and humanitarian need before political constraints and to go where others may not. This may involve some unorthodox behavior and some unofficial travel--but it gives us the priceless privilege of, as the British advertisement for a certain brand of lager beer claims, ``Reaching those parts where others cannot reach.'' Thus it is that CSI has made it possible for us to make several visits, for example, to some of the people of Southern Sudan, many of them have been cut off from other aid organizations by the brutal policies of the fundamentalist Islamic Government in Khartoum. The magnitude of the sufferings of the Sundanese people must rank amongst the greatest in the world today: with perhaps 1.5 million killed and over 5 million displaced by civil war. Many Southerners have been captured and enslaved by Northerners--so I believe the spirit of Wilberforce would be striving for their freedom as much as he strove for those who suffered as slaves in his own day. Just 2 Weeks ago, CSI organized another mission to people so cut off that they had absolutely no medicines; many were literally starving, many were naked and very cold as the temperatures fall steeply at night. We took medicines and we plan to return with more urgently needed supplies. We were also able to take with us the exiled Roman Catholic Bishop of El Obeid; I am not a Catholic, but I wish you could have shared with me the happiness of seeing the rejoicing of people who had not seen a Bishop or been able to celebrate mass for 20 years. It was CSI who made it possible for me to visit the Karen people of Burma last November, an ethnic minority ferociously persecuted by the SLORC regime. Many have been forced into slave labour, others live as stateless, displaced people, trapped in the jungle. Recently, the SLORC Regime has stepped up its military offensive against the Karen, forcing tens of thousands more to flee as refugees to Thailand, and trapping many more behind their own lines, where capture will mean a fate worse than death. It was CSI which reached the Armenian people in January 1992, when they were blockaded, besieged, bombarded in their ancient homeland of Nagorno Karabakh, a beautiful part of historic Armenia cruelly relocated by Stalin as an Isolated enclave in Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan has adopted an explicit policy of ethnic cleansing of the Armenians from Karabakh. Karabakh is a beautiful land with some of the most ancient Christian churches in the world, the Armenians being the first nation to accept Christianity. The Armenians who live there have been fighting for the survival of their families, homes, homeland and their--and our--Christian heritage. It has been a battle against impossible odds, like David and Goliath. 150,000 Armenians are defending their land against 7 million-strong Azerbaijan, helped by Turkey and literally thousands of mujahadeen mercenaries. In that bitter January, we found the besieged and blockaded Armenians suffering casualties caused by constant bombardment, without any anesthetics or pain-killing drugs, with only vodka to try to relieve the suffering. Returning to Britain, I could not sleep thinking about their predicament; and it was CSI which, without the requisite money, responded in faith and enabled us to obtain supplies of morphine, cocaine powder (for challenge of taking this consignment of drugs, street value incalculable, across Europe to the depths of Karabakh was rather daunting. God sometimes asks us to do strange things: I had to turn myself into an unofficial drug runner! But we were able to return to Karabakh within 12 days with those desperately needed supplies. If anyone would like to know how we did it, I am prepared to tell you the secret, for a contribution to our next consignment to Karabakh-- our 24th-- when we will be taking a team of Christian volunteers to build a rehabilitation center for amputees, because there are no facilities for artificial limbs in Karabakh, for the hundreds of people, including children, with amputations caused by the war. And it was CSI which reached another, different kind of forgotten people: orphans suffering in the Soviet Union. During a Human Rights Conference in Leningrad in 1990, newly elected Russian Deputies asked us to investigate the plight of children taken into care, whom they suspected were incorrectly diagnosed as mentally handicapped or ``oligophrenic''. Once classified, they were shut away in special orphanages, deprived of a proper education, often abused physically and by drugs. As they grew up, they were denied all basic human rights, could not vote or drive, and were forced to work in conditions which were, in effect, slave labour. Children who resisted or ran away were sent to psychiatric hospitals, where they were often subjected to torture by drugs. I visited some of these children and returned to Britain full of anguish. Many seemed to be bright, able youngsters, but doomed to lives without hope. I will never forget the pale, haunted faces of Serge and Dmitri, two articulate 14-year-old boys in a grim psychiatric hospital, not mentally ill, but tanked-up with drugs and Dmitri's heart-breaking plea, `Please will you find me a mother? I want to get out of here!'' It was CSI who again reacted in faith and responded to a request from Russian colleagues who were deeply worried about the situation, by funding a visit by a multidisciplinary team to undertake research in orphanages in Moscow and St. Petersburg. The findings shook the system; over \2/3\ of those classified and treated as ``oligophrenic'' were of average or above average mental ability. We published the findings in a report called ``Trajectories of Despair: Misdiagnosis and Maltreatment of Soviet Orphans.'' This has since been translated into Russian and is serving as a basis for policy reform. Many children previously classified as oligophrenic have now been reclassified and can lead normal lives. We are also trying to establish projects in Moscow, with Russian colleagues, to help change the policy of child care throughout the Russian Federation. So I would like to emphasize that I am honored to receive this award, not for myself, but on behalf of CSI. I was recently reading a biography of William Wilberforce and was struck by this sentence: ``The man who resembled a shrimp . . . had shown the world that a righteous cause, coupled with determination and motivated by faith in a loving God, can produce miracles.'' (He Freed Britain's Slaves', Charles Ludwig, p. 203.) We in CSI always feel so inadequate; we are inadequate. But we hope God can use our efforts. I remember on my way into Burma, I was feeling acutely depressed as I thought, ``What on earth can we do with our meager resources to begin to help the Karen people with their massive problems?'' Then in my morning Bible reading I found the message in Second Kings 4:42-44, the Old Testament forerunner of the parable of the loaves and the fishes. A man with 20 loaves of bakery barley bread was told by Elisha to distribute them to feed a crowd of 100 hungry people. In a crisis of confidence, he asked what use they could be among so many; but Elisha replied, ``Give it to the people to eat. For this is what the Lord says: They will eat and have some left over.'' And indeed they did eat and some left over. That message was a comfort. We in CSI hope that God can use our pathetic, meager resources in ways we cannot understand. At times it seems that the message on a notepad given me by my daughter could be our motto, ``I do not believe in miracles, I rely on them.'' Before I conclude, I wish to pay especial tribute to those whom we have been privileged to meet and to be with in their dark and difficult days. I wish I had longer to tell you about their courage, generosity, graciousness and dignity. A few examples must speak for many more. Come with me to Southern Sudan, where the people are dying around us from starvation and disease; those who are still alive are suffering from hunger, thirst, nakedness and the constant fear of attack and enslavement. But despite their suffering, they still smile with the famous Sudanese smile. Join me as the Bishop speaks to his people at mass in what they called their ``cathedral'' under a tamarind tree: ``This most beautiful cathedral, not built with human hands, but by nature and by God, is filled with the people of God, and especially with children. ``We must tell our brothers and sisters that the people here are still full of hope and that they still smile in spite of suffering and persecution. ``Those smiles put us to shame. Your people have suffered slavery, but you are not slaves to the world but children of God, our God who has told us we can call Him ``Abba'' or ``Father''. Christianity gives us liberty; therefore we are no longer slaves but free: children of liberty, freedom and truth. But we live in a bad world. Many of your people have been sold into slavery. But for me that is not to become a slave. Slavery is not a matter of the colour of the skin. The real slave is a person who lives in sin; who does injustice to brothers and sisters; and who kills them. That person is a slave to sin. ``Some people feel naked because they have no clothes and they try to cover themselves because of their embarrassment. But this is not real nakedness. True nakedness is to be without love. Therefore to be clothed in love: this is Christianity. It is not a shirt that you can take on or take off; but to wear the faith and love of the Christian faith is as a way of life and witness to it, even to those who do not believe in Christ. ``So as we go away, do not think we leave you or forget you. There are still many good people in the world and you will be remembered as people who are closest to God because you are carrying the cross, every day obeying Christ's command to take up His cross and to follow Him. We will pray for you. But prayer without action is dead, as faith without deed is dead. Our love will be in action for you. I came, saw, heard, touched, and I am enriched.'' Now please come for a brief glimpse of the Christian church amongst the persecuted Karen people of Burma. Just one image: I and my CSI colleagues (a splendidly interdenominational mixture of Pentecostal, Evangelical, Russian Orthodox and myself (Anglican `Unorthodox'), went to worship at the nearest church in the jungle--a Baptist church. A Bell was sounding out--a bell made from a Burmese bomb. A modern-day symbol: instead of swords into ploughshares, bombs into bells. But sadly, now, the bombs are raining down on the Karen and they need our prayers as many suffer the afflictions of war, or as slaves inside Burman, or as refugees in Thailand. Finally, our Armenian Christian brothers and sisters in Karabakh. Those who have heard me speak before will have heard examples of their faith and their witness to a love which transcends suffering. I only have time for one vignette. At the beginning of the process of attempted ethnic cleansing, Azerbaijan undertook a series of deportations of entire villages. They were brutal operations, in which innocent villagers were rounded up, many were maltreated, some murdered; homes were ransacked; then the people were forcibly driven off their land, unable to take anything with them. After one of these terrible events, at Getashen, a farmer managed to escape into the mountains. On top of a hill there he saw a fruit tree in blossom and looked for solace under this tree; only to find as he approached the tree a little five year old girl hanging from its branches, her tiny body cut in two. As he looked upon the little girl, he swore revenge. Two years later, he and his comrades had the opportunity to take back an Armenian village taken by the Azeris. He now had the opportunity for revenge. With tears steaming down his face, he told me: ``But I couldn't make myself harm a child--I failed and was unable to keep my vow.'' I replied, your reward will be crown of glory. He in turn replied, ``That crown we wear is a crown of thorns.'' Those whom we are privileged to meet during CSI's ministry are indeed wearing their crown of thorns with great dignity. They suffer from man's inhumanity to man, like those for whom William Wilberforce felt so deeply and for whom he fought so valiantly. These words of the Bishop of Karabakh speak for them all, with their affirmation of faith, their challenge to us, and their magnificent, resounding commitment to that love which must be the hallmark of Christian faith and witness: ``The help of God is great and immeasurable when the human heart turns to Him with fervour. Our nation has again begun to find its faith and is praying in churches, cellars and in the field of battle, defending its life and the life of those who are near and dear. It is not only the perpetrators of crime and evil who commit sin, but also those who stand by-- seeing and knowing--and who do not condemn it or try to avert it. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. We do not hate: we believe in God. If we want God's victory, we must love. Even if there are demonic forces at work, not only in this conflict, but in other parts of the world, we must still love.'' So, I finish by thanking you for the great honour you have given me, and for the opportunity to honour others who carry forward the spirit of William Wilberforce. May I leave you some lines by John Harriott, SJ, quoted by Max Warren in an article in ``New Fire'' (Winter, 1975, p. 453): Let us open the clenched fish and extend the open palm. Let us mourn till others are comforted, weep till others laugh. Let us be sleepless till all can sleep untroubled. Let us be frugal till all are filled. Let us give till all have received. Let us make no claim till all have had their due. Let us be slaves till all are free. Let us lay down our lives till all have life abundantly.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to Members' attention the passing of former Congressman George Meader who served as a Republican Member of the House from the Second Congressional District of Michigan from 1950-64. Congressman Meader's daughter, Katherine Vandelly, and son-in-law, James E. Vandelly, are constituents of mine from the 10th Congressional District of Virginia. Congressman Meader passed away at the University of Michigan hospital on October 15, 1994, after a short illness. He was 87 years of age. The son of a Methodist minister, Congressman Meader was born in Benton Harbor, MI, on September 13, 1907. He began his undergraduate studies at Ohio Wesleyan University and completed his A.B. degree at the University of Michigan in 1927. After marrying Elizabeth Faeth in 1928, he entered the University of Michigan Law School and earned his juris doctor degree in 1931. Congressman Meader began his professional career as a practicing attorney in Ann Arbor during the 1930's, and was elected Washtenaw County prosecuting attorney in 1940. In 1943, he joined the famed Truman-Mead Senate War Investigating Committee in Washington, DC, serving first as assistant counsel, then as chief counsel. He returned to private law practice in 1947, then served as chief counsel to the Senate Fulbright Banking and Currency Subcommittee investigating FRC loans until his election to the 82d Congress in 1950. He represented the Second Congressional District of Michigan from 1950 to 1964, serving on the House Judiciary and Government Operations Committees. After leaving Congress, Congressman Meader served as counsel to both the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress and the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations before being elected president of the Former Members of Congress in 1974. He returned to private law practice in Washington, DC, and Ann Arbor until retirement. In the years following his service in the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Meader continued his ardent interest in improving the operations of Congress, as well as protecting the institutions of democratic government. Congressman Meader was preceded in death by his wife, Elizabeth Meader, formerly of Ashcaffenburg, Germany, and by his daughter, Barbara Meader of Ann Arbor. He is survived by a son, Robert Meader, and wife Nancy; daughter Katherine Vandelly, and husband James. He is also survived by five grandchildren: David Meader, and wife Judy; Richard Meader, Randall Meader, and wife Kami; Cynthia Vandelly, James M. Vandelly; and four great-grandchildren: James A. Vandelly; Christopher, Scott, and Craig Meader. He is also survived by his sister, Frances Way, and brothers Dr. Ralph G. Meader, and wife Olive; and Edwin Meader, and wife Mary. I know all Members would join with me in expressing the sympathy of the House to Congressman Meader's family.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I am today, along with Mr. Barton, Mr. Armey, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Packard, Mr. Fox, and Mr. English, introducing the Amtrak Route Closure and Realignment Act of 1995. Before I elaborate on this legislation, I want to say that this is not an attempt to eliminate passenger rail service in the United States. This is an attempt to save it. This bill is about an economic rebirth of a system headed for financial disaster--a disaster that would continue present subsidies. And they are not. When the private railroads turned over their passenger business to the Government in 1971, Congress made what was referred to as a one- time grant of $140 million for startup help. More than two decades later, a total of about $15 billion in taxpayer assistance has been granted to Amtrak. This legislation seeks to achieve the evolution of a passenger rail network in this Nation which can be viable on greatly reduced taxpayer subsidies. Current Federal subsidies for Amtrak, including operating, capital, and mandatory retirement payments, total more than $1 billion annually. Of that total, nearly $400 million is for operating subsidies. The goal of this legislation would be to reduce and possibly phase out the operating subsidies over a 5-year period. In December, the Amtrak Board of Directors took very positive action in announcing some route closings, truncations, and frequency reductions. But these realignments were targeted only at dealing with the current revenue shortfall of about $200 million. These decisions, painful as they were, represent just the first step. Much more remains to be done. Since some of Amtrak's unprofitable routes have been mandated by Congress, it is imperative that Congress provide Amtrak with the assistance needed to reinvent this system into one that is operated under strict business principles. My legislation would remove the painful decisions that must be made from the political realm and place them in the hands of an independent Commission modeled after BRAC, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. The Total Realignment of Amtrak Commission [TRAC] would conduct an economic analysis of the entire Amtrak system and hold public hearings around the country to ensure that the public and other stakeholders were given the opportunity to be heard. This would be as fair a process as humanly possible with the end goal to make recommendations on route closings and other realignments urgently needed to ensure the survival of a passenger rail system in America. In addition to economic data, TRAC would also review nonmonetary data such as the contributions made by certain routes toward alleviation of airport congestion, pollution abatement, and energy conservation. This Commission would also examine alternative modes of transportation in rural areas, as well as look at uses communities could make of abandoned rail lines. Under my legislation, no segment of the Amtrak system would be exempt from review, including the Northeast corridor. TRAC would also examine the ridership forecasts and other assumptions underlying the Northeast corridor, particularly with respect to the continuation of the electrification of this corridor from New Haven to Boston, a project that will demand large subsidies in future years. This is about a $2 billion project, with nearly $500 million already expended. The recommendations of this Commission would not be limited to a system which offers national, interconnected service. After the completion of systemwide economic analysis, the Commission could find, for example, that the only system which can be justified to the taxpayers is one that provides regional services. However, connectivity could be an option examined by States along currently unprofitable long haul routes. If States would decide to continue service along such routes slated for closure, State officials could contract with Amtrak to continue service, possibly using flexibility under block grants. I would point out that, under current law, this Commission would face a difficult dilemma. Because the Rail Labor Protection Act mandates payment of 6 years of full benefits to any rail worker who loses a job due to a route closing, many of the most unprofitable routes would cost more to close than to keep them limping along at a loss. In fact, under the 30-mile rule also in current law, an Amtrak employee is entitled to demand the full severance package if he is merely relocated 30 miles or more. No union workers in the private sector are afforded such generous severance compensation, and these astronomical costs are one of the reasons that every trip on this system costs American taxpayers $25. My colleague, Mr. Barton of Texas, has reintroduced his legislation to remedy this dilemma by limiting such severance benefits to 6 months and by eliminating the so-called 30-mile rule. I am supporting my colleague's bill and its speedy enactment would be very helpful to the decisions which would have to be made by the route closing Commission. After conducting a complete, systemwide, economic review, TRAC would present its recommendations to Congress. The Commission's recommendations would then be considered by Congress under an expedited timeframe with no amendments permitted and an up-or-down vote. The members of TRAC would be appointed by the President and by the majority leadership in the House and Senate, in consultation with minority leadership in both bodies. My legislation calls for the membership of the Commission to be comprised of individuals with expertise in rail finance, economic analysis, legal issues, and other relevant areas. Also serving on the Commission would be the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, one representative of a rail labor union, and one member of rail management. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate that saving passenger rail service in this country requires objective analysis and urgent remedies. And, I believe it has to be a system that we can justify to the taxpayers.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I was in my office and heard the debate, and I ran over. As somebody who was asked by Mr. Gingrich to be head of the Family Friendly Caucus, let me just make a coupe of comments and observations. One, I would hope that the votes would be rolled. To ask somebody from California to come in by 2, I live here and I do not have to fly. I am a half-hour from home. Frankly, I am tired. I just think that somehow we all know the ways of working these rules. There ought not be votes until 5 o'clock. No one should have to leave their family. Second, if I may say two more things, second, we need--and I would ask Mr. Armey when we are finished and Mr. Gephardt--I heard your exchange about meeting on. Monday, I ask to determine a set hour, so that at a certain hour, whether it be midnight you told you wife or your kids or whether it be 7 o'clock, there are certain and set hours. Third, speaking from this side, perhaps we cannot have open rules. Perhaps what we need are fair rules, whereby we give the leadership whatever amendments they see fit but it cannot continue to go on. Because one Member the other night said to me, and I am not going to say who, ``I thought you said we were going to have a family friendly Congress.'' Then when I got back to my office, that Member was getting up and objecting and tying the place up. I cannot make this a family friendly Congress, but we can, all work together, make it a family friendly Congress. So we do not want to manipulate the rules. I think if we can develop a better spirit we can do it. First, no votes before 5, second, let us get a set time; or third, frankly, we are probably going to have to do away with the open rules and have rules, what I would call fair rules, so that we can then have set times. I hope we can do it.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today's New York Times points out that the State Department released its 1995 report on human rights, and human rights has fallen behind in China. We ought to be careful when we consider MFN later on this year, because there is slave labor in China making goods. In fact, I will bet there are members of Congress that are wearing clothing made by slave labor in China. There is organ sales; for $30,000 you can get a slave labor person shot, and they will donate their kidney for you. There is persecution of Christians whereby they are going in house churches. It goes on and on. Lastly, members concerned about the economy, the trade imbalance with China is now $30 billion. When Tiananmen Square came, it was $6 billion, and now it is $30 billion. I strongly urge every Member to get today's New York Times and read it, especially before we vote on MFN, because we should never give MFN to a nation that is persecuting its own people and destroying the Christian Church and plundering Tibet. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the State Department released its 1995 Report on Human Rights which said what human rights observers have been saying for the past 7 months, that the human rights situation in China has deteriorated since President Clinton renewed China's most-favored- nation status last May. The report, as quoted in today's New York Times says, In 1994, there continued to be widespread and well- documented human rights abuses in China, in violation of internationally accepted norms, stemming both from the authorities' intolerance of dissent and the inadequacy of legal safeguards for freedom of speech, association and religion. Even Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Winston Lord was forced to admit the same thing several weeks ago in light of all the harsh realities. The Times article summarizes the report as follows: The report criticizes the Chinese Government for detention of perhaps thousands of ``prisoners of conscience;'' an inadequate accounting of those who are missing or detained after the 1989 pro-democracy demonstrations; and crackdown of journalists; the routine arrest of dissidents during foreign visits and requiring prisoners to work in labor camps. The report notes that forced abortion and sterilization occurs, and accuses the Chinese Government of forcing prisoners to donate their organs for transplants. It also acknowledges the horrendous repression of dissent occurring in Tibet the tiny Himalayan country occupied by the Chinese for over three decades. That is not all that has deteriorated. In 1989, the year of the Tiananmen Square tragedy, the United States trade deficit with China was $6 billion; now the trade deficit has exploded is worse is that American workers are forced to compete with products manufactured with slave labor. On all fronts, our engagement policy with China is not working. It is not improving human rights and it is not improving the trade deficit. This year I hope the Congress will think long and hard about changing it.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, for as long as I can remember Federal employees who are members of employee organizations, like credit unions, child care centers, health and fitness organizations, recreation associations, and professional associations, have been able to represent the views of the employee organization to the employing department or agency. I think all would agree that active employee participation in matters of employment should be encouraged. Until now, Federal employees' ability to represent to their superiors the interests of their employee organization has peacefully coexisted with Sec. 205 of title 18, United States Code, which prohibits a Government employee, except in the performance of official duties, from acting as agent or attorney for anyone before any agency or court of the United States in connection with a covered matter. A covered matter is described at 18 U.S.C. Sec. 205(h) as including ``any judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, investigation, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter.'' Until now, issues affecting employees as employees, such as pay and benefits issues, have not been viewed as covered matters. The Department of Justice [DoJ] has recently issued legal opinions and guidelines stating that managers or supervisors who are Federal employees and who represent the interests of their peers or associations before senior management officials are guilty of a violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 205 and could be prosecuted as felons and subject to imprisonment and fines. Technically, according to DoJ, an employee who asks to use office space on behalf of an employee organization may have violated the law and could be subject to criminal prosecution. Mr. Speaker, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 205 was enacted in 1962 and there has not been a problem until DoJ issued its opinion. Now, if a Federal employee wishes to discuss child care on behalf of her employee organization, she is in technical violation of the law. This situation is outrageous and must be corrected. I have contacted the Attorney General about this issue and am awaiting a response. In the meantime, I am introducing legislation which reverses the Department of Justice's interpretation of the law to allow a Federal employee to represent an employee association or the interests of its members to the executive branch or any agency of the Government. This small technical change will protect the rights that Federal employees have enjoyed for years until the Department of Justice removed them through its interpretation of the law. This legislation is a good-government measure, is good for Federal employees, and maintains the integrity and purpose of Sec. 205. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to cosponsor this legislation and urge the House to make this technical change to the law as soon as possible.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I reintroducing legislation to preserve the Civil War sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. The Shenandoah Valley National Battlefields Partnership Act, which enjoyed wide bipartisan support in the 103d Congress, provides us with an excellent opportunity to preserve an integral piece of American history. In response to a congressional directive--Public Law 101-628--the National Park Service [NPS] undertook the task of studying the Civil War sites in the Shenandoah Valley. The NPS identified significant Civil War sites and determined their condition, established their relative importance, assessed short- and long-term threats to their integrity, and provided general alternatives for their preservation. The Park Service discovered that 15 of the 326 documented armed conflicts in the valley between 1861 and 1865 were of particularly high significance. Because many portions of the valley retain a high degree of historic, rural, and scenic integrity, the NPS concluded that they should be preserved. The two major valley campaigns--the Thomas J. ``Stonewall'' Jackson Valley campaign of 1862 and the decisive Philip Sheridan campaign of 1864--are the major Civil War battlefields not yet preserved. This Congress has an historic opportunity to capitalize on the overwhelming momentum of support for this legislation. Unfortunately, the NPS did not recommend a specific preservation strategy. Therefore, some local valley residents accepted a challenge by Park Service staff to devise a plan to preserve these historic lands. Their efforts were remarkable. Their dedication and perseverance unflappable. This was truly a grass roots effort. Local residents began to meet and discuss how these hallowed lands could be preserved for future generations to learn from and enjoy. They are eager to share the stories of the valley--not just battle maneuvers and formations, but the stories of people dislocated by a brutal war. They want to share the story of how the city of Winchester, VA, changed hands between North and South at least 73 times, and how that turmoil affected local residents. After countless meetings and telephone conversations, in which the National Park Service was consulted, a consensus began to form around a partnership concept where Federal, State, and local governments, private landowners and preservation groups could work together to preserve these lands. After a draft bill was ready, we held discussion meetings in the Shenandoah Valley on the proposed legislation. These meetings provided an opportunity for thorough review and comment by valley residents and officials on this legislation. These meetings, attended by local government officials, landowners, business people, and preservationists, served as a vehicle to refine, modify, and improve the legislation with the input and advice of citizens from throughout the Shenandoah Valley. What I found during those public meetings was unprecedented unanimous support for this legislation. I served at the Department of the Interior in the seventies under Secretary Morton, and I can't recall ever gaining such widespread support for a park bill. The legislation before this subcommittee has been endorsed by every local government where core battlefield properties are located. Moreover, we have a broad, bipartisan coalition of interests united to preserve these treasures of history. The list that follows my statement, compiled over a year and a half ago, comprises those persons and entities who endorsed this partnership approach to preservation. There have been many others since this list was put together. This House should know that the work of valley residents did not end with the drafting and introduction of this legislation. There has been great activity in the past year. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors and Winchester City Council have appointed a battlefield task force whose responsibility it is to prepare a strategic plan for the protection and use of the battlefield sites. They have developed an interim action plan which designates the most critical and significant sites and recommends immediate actions to be taken. Frederick County and the city of Winchester have also successfully convinced a trustee of a battlefield property at Kernstown to postpone a planned auction. Moreover, they have purchased a $500,000 2-year option to buy the land. Not only have the local governments dedicated time and personnel to planning the preservation of the battlefields, they have committed scarce resources to protect these lands. This is an overwhelming demonstration of their commitment to the successful implementation of a preservation plan. Local governments alone can't preserve these valuable resources; they need a partnership with the Federal Government to preserve these lands. Even the most well intentioned friends of battlefield preservation will find it difficult to keep the threats of residential construction, commercial development, highway construction, and industrial development at bay. Interstates 66 and 81 bring increasing pressure on this rural landscape and threaten to consume more battlefield land. As the NPS study indicates, some critical properties have already been lost. Since the Civil War, most of the Shenandoah Valley has remained in the same type of agricultural use, but, as the Park Service has reported, increasing development threatens key battlefield sites. This legislation would protect many of these through designation as a unit of the National Park System, while encouraging partnerships with local governments and private landowners to protect the natural cultural and historical resources on adjacent lands within the historic core areas of the key battlefield sites. Partnership is the key ingredient in this bill. It was borne of cooperation and will succeed by bringing all interested parties into the planning, development, and implementation of this novel preservation scheme. This legislation capitalizes on the cooperation and hard work which have created a sturdy foundation upon which to build this park. Much of the groundwork has been laid by residents of the valley and specialists knowledgeable about land use planning, environmental impact studies, and so forth. By passing this legislation, this body will capitalize on the experience, dedication, and knowledge base that exists in the valley for preparing a plan for park management, visitor facilities, educational the Shenandoah Valley. The NPS should work hand-in-glove with the local community. The second important component of the legislation is that it provides incentives for local governments to preserve historic land by including battlefield protection in regional planning. As the Park Service study observed, local governments are under increasing pressure to allow residential construction, commercial development, highway construction, and industrial development. Grants and technical assistance provide the necessary incentives that local governments need to ward off development pressures. The third key ingredient which I would like to stress is the grants to private battlefield landowners. Because of the tight fiscal constraints of Federal discretionary spending, we can't expect the National Park Service to purchase thousands and thousands of acres of land. This is much too expensive. We can, however provide incentives to local landowners to assist in the preservation of historic lands. In exchange for these economic incentives, private landowners could provide the Park Service needed scenic or preservation easements or could contractually agree to maintain open-space lands with historic viewsheds. This will ensure that a comprehensive overall interpretation of the resource is attained. Based on suggestions made by many residents of the valley, I added a provision in this legislation which continues to allow living history demonstrations and battlefield reenactments on the battlefields. Living history demonstrations help educate visitors about what life was like during the battle. Also groups like the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation use reenactments to help raise money for continued preservation and interpretation of the battlefields. The time is upon us for Federal action to preserve the historic Civil War battlefields of the Shenandoah Valley, in partnership with State and local governments, local landowners, and preservation groups. This innovative concept will be the least costly and disruptive strategy to protect the lands forever. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not recognize the tremendous contributions of citizens from the valley and every county government which has supported this legislation. I can't possibly thank everyone in the valley and across the country who has supported this effort, but would like to let them know that this House and I are grateful for their diligent work. The following is a list of some of the supporters of this legislation. Shenandoah Valley Proposal Endorsements--By County frederick The Glass-Glen Burnie Foundation, landowner/individual. Town of Middletown, government. Town of Stephens City, government. Winchester-Frederick Chamber of Commerce, business. Winchester-Frederick County Econ. Dev. Comm., business. shenandoah Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites, landowner/individual. C.M. ``Mike'' Hunt, landowner/individual. Sarah P. Faulconer, landowner/individual. James H. Faulconer, landowner/individual. Garland C. Hudgins, landowner/individual. Breckenridge Chapter, Daughters of the Confederacy, historic group. Town of New Market, government. Clifton M. Truesdale, individual. The Strasburg Guards, Sons of Confederate Veterans, historic group. Town of Woodstock, government. David E. Smith, landowner/individual. William Craun, landowner/individual. William F. Bausserman, landowner/individual. William J. Bausserman, landowner/individual. Harold Walter, landowner/individual. Keith Rocco, landowner/individual. J.W. Troxell, landowner/individual. Ralph Stickley, landowner/individual. Tom's Brook Farm,/Rodney A. Bankson, CDR, USN-Ret., landowner/individual. 10th Virginia Volunteer Infantry, historic group. Cross Keys Antiques/John B. Woodyard, landowner/individual. Friends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River, civic group. Hupp's Hill Battlefield Park and Study Center, historic group/business. New Market Area Chamber of Commerce, business. New Market Battlefield Historical Park, historic group. Patricia K Marie, landowner/individual. Reformation Lutheran Church, civic group. Robert D. Plu, landowner/individual. Shenandoah Caverns, business. Shenandoah Valley Civil War Roundtable, historic group. Shenandoah Valley Quality Inn/Lois Moomaw, Gen. Man, business. Strasburg Rotary Club, civic group. Town of Mount Jackson, government. Town of Tom's Brook, government. VMI Museum Programs, historic group. Women's Memorial Society, civic group. Woodstock Museum, historic group. rockingham Arthur J. Hamilton, landowner/individual. Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites, landowner/individual. Barbara Paulson, landowner/individual. Cherry Grove Farm/George K. Harnsberger, landowner/ individual. F & M Bank-Massanutten, business. Graham C. Lilly/Professor of Law UVA, landowner/individual. Harrisonburg-Rockingham Historic Society, historic group. Harry L. Chandler, landowner/individual. Lawrence D. Bowers/Wilson & Bowers, landowner/individual. Martha B. Caldwell/Professor of Art History JMU, landowner/ individual. Mr. & Mrs. Brownie A. Cummins, landowner/individual. Mr. & Mrs. Thomas F. Tutwiler, landowner/individual. Peter Svenson, landowner/individual. The Inn at Keezletown Road Bed & Breakfast, business. The Society of Port Republic Preservationists, historic group. The Town of Dayton, Virginia, government. James J. Geary, Former Dir. New Market Battle., landowner/ individual. Ronald E. Carrier, President, James Madison Univ., educational. Barbara Moore, landowner/individual. Daniel M. Downey, Ph.D, landowner/individual. Tom's Brook Farm/Rodney A. Bankson, CDR, USN-Ret., landowner/individual. W. Allen & Phoebe Sherwood, landowner/individual. W. C. Bedall, Jr., landowner/individual. Wilmer Diehl Family, landowner/individual. highland Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites, landowner/individual. The Board of Supervisors for Highland County, government. The Recorder, business/press. Virginia's Western Highlands Travel Council, business. winchester City of Winchester, government. Elizabeth G. Helm/Former Mayor, government. Downtown Development Board, government. The Common Council of the City of Winchester, government. augusta Winston Wine, landowner/individual. page Luray Caverns Corporation, business. port republic Mark & Susan Hardy, landowner/individual. regional The Civil War Trust, historic group. alexandria Brian C. Pohanka, landowner. valley wide Shenandoah Valley Travel Association, business.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation establishing the National Gambling Impact and Policy Commission. This blue ribbon panel will be composed of nine members--three appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, three appointed by the majority leader of the Senate, and three appointed by the President of the United States. One of the appointees should be a State Governor. America is on a gambling binge. The question facing this commission will be: are we trading long-term economic growth and prosperity for short-term gain? Gambling is one of the fastest growing industries in the nation and is becoming America's pastime. In 1993, Americans made more trips to casinos than they did to major league ballparks. At the turn of the century, gambling was prohibited. Today, however, there are 37 State lotteries, casinos operate in 23 States, and 95 percent of all Americans are expected to live within a 3- or 4-hour drive of a casino by the year 2000. Only two States, Hawaii and Utah, forbid wagering. Reports indicate that cash-strapped State and local governments will continue to authorize more gambling operations in the hope that they will be an economic bonanza. Governments often fail to consider, though, that gambling can bring on economic problems to their jurisdictions that far outweigh any benefits. Negative impacts on State and local economies, small businesses, and families can no longer be ignored. Crime and social problems related to gambling could add to already overburdened criminal justice and social welfare systems. This is an issue of national economic importance, and I believe the new Congress should examine it closely over the coming months. The Commission established by this legislation will conduct a comprehensive legal and factual study of gambling in the United States. I will outline some of the specific matters to be studied and some examples of why they should be studied. The Commission should review the costs and effectiveness of State and Federal gambling regulatory policy, including whether Indian gaming should be regulated by States as well as the Federal Government. Indian gambling accounts for about 5 percent of all casino gambling and that figure is growing at an extraordinary rate. Unlike New Jersey and Nevada which has extremely costly, mature, and effective regulatory structures, the Federal effort to regulate Indian gaming to prevent the infiltration of organized crime is scanty at best. There are less than 30 staff persons to regulate Indian gaming operations throughout the country. The Commission should recommend whether or not Indian gaming should be regulated by the States. The Commission should examine the economic impact of gambling on other businesses. As gambling proliferates, job-creating wealth is shifted from savings and investment to gambling which creates no useful product. Income spent on gambling is not spent on movies, clothes, recreation services, or other goods or services. Gambling cannibalizes other businesses such as restaurants. For example, the number of restaurants in Atlantic City declined from 243 in 1977, the year after casinos were legalized, to 146 in 1987. The Commission should make a detailed assessment and review of the political contributions and influence of gambling promoters on the development of public policy regulating gambling. Proponents of gambling raised about $14 million in their losing battle to bring casino gambling to Florida. Millions in contributions are given to lawmakers yearly by gambling interests. In my own State of Virginia, ten casino industry groups spent $317,000 lobbying Virginia's legislators to roll the dice and bet on casino or riverboat gambling. Gambling interest's role in the formation of public policy is important because a recent study notes that most economic impact statements about gambling overwhelmingly are written from the gambling proponents perspective. The Commission should make a detailed assessment of the relationship between gambling and crime. In one report, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement opposed legalizing casino gambling because they indicated ``casinos will result in more Floridians and visitors being robbed, raped, assaulted, and otherwise injured.'' Sometimes organized crime is associated with gambling because of the huge amounts of cash involved, making it an easy target of money launderers. Drug money, extortion money, and prostitution money are all laundered through such operations. Gambling may on occasion breed political corruption. Seventeen South Carolina legislators were convicted of taking bribes to legalize horse and dog track racing. Six Arizona legislators pleaded guilty in 1990 for accepting bribes on a bill to legalize casino gambling. Seven Kentucky legislators pleaded guilty of bribery for the same. In 1990, a former West Virginia Governor pleaded guilty to taking a bribe from racing interests. In 1994, a West Virginia lottery director was sentenced to Federal prison for rigging a video lottery contract. Because of crime associated with casino gambling, regulatory agencies in New Jersey spend over $59 million annually to monitor the city's casinos. In 1992, the Wall Street Journal reported that since 1976, Atlantic City's police budget has tripled to $24 million while the local population has decreased 20 percent. During the first 3 years of casino gambling, Atlantic City went from 50th in the Nation in per capital crime to 1st. Overall, from 1977 to 1990, the crime rate in that city rose by an incredible 230 percent. Organized criminal activity is so pervasive that the American Insurance Institute estimates that 40 percent of all white collar crime is gambling related. The Commission should also study the impact of pathological, or problem gambling on individuals, families, social institutions, criminal activity, and the economy. Gambling social costs include direct regulatory costs, lost productivity costs, direct crime costs, as well as harder-to-price costs such as suicide, and family disintegration. Various studies indicate that the mean gambling-related debt of people in compulsive gambling therapy ranged from about $53,000 to $92,000. Compulsive gamblers in New Jersey were accumulating an estimated $514 million in yearly debt. embezzlement, drug dealing, and property crimes to pay off gambling debts. They are responsible for an estimated $1.3 billion worth of insurance-related fraud per year which is borne by the rest of us in the form of increased premiums, deductibles, or copayments. Teenage gambling is another daunting social problem. In 1991 New Jersey casino security ejected 21,838 persons under the age of 21 from casinos, and prevented another 196,707 from entering. The New Jersey Casino Control Commission regularly reports 25,000 or more teenagers being stopped at the door or ejected from the floors of Atlantic City's casinos. One can only guess at how many teenagers do get in, gamble, and are served drinks. Today, research indicates that as many as 7 percent of teenagers may be addicted to gambling. The Commission should review the demographics of gamblers because studies indicate a disproportionate number of gamblers are low-income people. Mr. Speaker, while I am personally opposed to legalized gambling in Virginia, I am not taking a position on whether other States should or should not permit gambling. The purpose of this legislation is to bring together all the relevant data so that Governors, State legislators, and citizens can have the facts they need to make informed decisions. I invite any interested Members to join me as cosponsors of this important legislation.